Small Government & Conservativism

[DeletedUser]

Your experience is anecdotal. Such observations are not sufficient evidence for a factual assertion. As an opinion it is valid, as a fact it is suspect.

That was a cheap dig at me and completely uncalled for. Leave the other thread where it belongs.

 

[DeletedUser34]

OMG, having experienced someone elses inability to tell the difference between humor and attacks today, all I have to say is you people need to stop assuming everything is an insult. I swear, If Hell and I were as obnoxious as you guys are about being offended, we would have never lasted as debate opposites.

Suck it up people, not everything is an insult...geeze.

 

[DeletedUser3422]

This is can be used as an example of “You aren't a conservative if you do not believe in a limited constitutional government.”
Freshman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) has joined six other GOP House members to propose legislation that would place police officers in schools across the nation to help protect children. The legislation would cost $30 million and is called The Protect America's Schools Act (William Bigelow)
Six republicans are sponsoring a bill which will increase government’s size and scope. Not all conservatives are republicans and very few republicans are conservatives. A limited government solution would leave this issue to the states. If this passes the federal government can use the threat of not funding cops in schools for a state that doesn’t teach gun safety or whatever the new flavor of the week is. The net result is more cost to the local tax payers and less local control of the school system.

 

[DeletedUser3]

And that strengthens your previous arguments how?

Returning to your earlier post, Obsidian is correct. I requested evidence to support your assertions, you instead posed vague anecdotes, not evidence. Taxes and regulations you can present as concrete evidence. There is ample data available to present. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't support your assertions, which is likely why you opted out. The same can be said for welfare recipients and your claim of illegal behavior. Again, the evidence does not support your assertions, thus you opted out.

Until you are able to present data to support your assertions, your opinions will be noted as just that, unsubstantiated opinions rooted in class-based elitist dogma. Respectfully, you can demonstrate otherwise simply by debating with facts and evidence instead of tinted lenses and "woe is me" statements inferring "the Man" is keeping you down.

Gee, sounds so familiar...

 

[DeletedUser3422]

I sure hope you are right and I am wrong, that would be golden. Thanks for bringing up my hypocrisy of the man keeping me down, looks like I am getting a taste of my own tarnished silver spoon.

 

[*Arturis*]

From my point of view, hyper inflation is around the corner, we will be in deep trouble if we are keeping going down this path. With all the debate over the fiscal cliff and sequestration it is just chump change compare to the amount the Fed injecting into the economy out of thin air with no ending sight of 85B a month. Liberals or Conservatives if they are not coming together to address and solve the problem we are facing as nation, we are over and done for good. I am living under the poverty line, my paycheck is just enough for me to live by, if it is getting any smaller, I am so doomed.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thank you Liberty for that statement. It provides a great opening to yet another entertaining contradiction.

Another argument associated with this is the claim of regulation. And yet we have conservativism actually spending significantly more on regulatory commissions despite the claim of deregulating (do note, Clinton's second term had a House/Senate GOP controlled Congress):

Finally, we have the ratio of government employment to population increasing during Republican Presidential terms and decreasing or maintaining during Democratic Presidential terms:

So, is it a myth? Is the claim of conservativism that of being smaller & less intrusive government just a facade'? When you consider that the Bush Jr. administration imposed the Patriot Act, and other Constitutional infringements, it does seem to lean on the side of --- hypocrisy.

Thoughts?

Only if you ignore the increases in military spending. Drop those out of your graph and the story is substantially different. Increasing military spending is not increasing the size of the gov't. Increasing the spending on non-military and non-Constitutional areas is and always has been the issue.

 

[DeletedUser3]

Would you like to present evidence to support your assertions?

 

[DeletedUser3364]

Increasing military spending is not increasing the size of the gov't.

Say what now....?

 

[DeletedUser2785]

Since Military spending is ONE of the roles set forth in the Constitution, increasing the funding does not EXPAND the Government. Creation of new Departments or programs, not set forth in the constitution or specifically granted to it by the States, DOES increase the SIZE of the Government.

Agencies Like the NEA ( National Endowment for the Arts) , and PBS and many more are examples of Expanding the Government role. While these are social responsibilities, many question if it is the role of the Federal Government to fund and administrate them.

I personally believe that the terms "Liberal and Conservative" are way out dated. Almost all Americans fall into both categories, depending on the individual issue being discussed.

 

[DeletedUser3]

Since Military spending is ONE of the roles set forth in the Constitution, increasing the funding does not EXPAND the Government. Creation of new Departments or programs, not set forth in the constitution or specifically granted to it by the States, DOES increase the SIZE of the Government. Agencies Like the NEA ( National Endowment for the Arts) , and PBS and many more are examples of Expanding the Government role. While these are social responsibilities, many question if it is the role of the Federal Government to fund and administrate them.

Your argument is not valid. First, "general defence" is what was posed in Article 1, Section 8. Expansion of military beyond general defense is not covered in the Constitution. Indeed, during the last 10 years, military expenses in excess of $3.7 trillion dollars was obtained through supplementary spending bills outside of the Federal budget. As to NEA, they are actually covered under "general welfare," (same section). As Alexander Hamilton indicated, "education" was a facet of general welfare and this was reaffirmed in many instances, that the general welfare was served by promoting education, which is exactly what NEA does (the arts being a field of education and quite prominent in business & history). But even if you wish to argue that point, how can you possibly compare $3.7 trillion to $154 million? The difference is far more than just 6 extra zeroes (indeed, with that kind of excess in military spending, you could afford to support 2,400 NEAs for a decade).

As to PBS, you couldn't be further from the truth. PBS is a non-profit organization that is wholly supported by public donations. Perhaps you want to argue that churches (non-profit organizations in themselves) are federally funded and an expansion of government? I have some history on that one that may ruffle some feathers.

 

[DeletedUser2785]

See this link.http://www.cpb.org/appropriation/history.html. This is just the federal appropriations to the corporation for Public broadcasting. A large portion of the budget also comes from state and local contributions.
I am going to agree with you on the general issue of funding of many of the programs within the federal budget that have been justified by the "General Welfare" clause. However, as always, it is my desire to question whether they are truly necessary for the general welfare of the nation. As it is your desire to question the definition of General Defense.

With all the discussion about the religious rights of muslims and the treatment of their book, I see no reason for the christian icon being profaned to be funded by the NEA. From Wiki but you can look it up if you wish: Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[SUP][1][/SUP] which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects, without controlling content.

However, I would like to find common ground on the issue of funding in general. When a household or person is many times their income in debt, how would you resolve that? Do you not first examine your budget to determine what could be done without? Even though the 455 million planned for the CPB is a miniscule portion of the total debt, possibly equating to brewing your own coffee vs. starbucking it, is it not a step you would be willing to take? Many consider the art of music a necessary need, but if the funds to buy the music are not there do they not find other ways to obtain it?

While solving some of the short term needs of the citizens, should not the long term effects be considered? As you state many of my positions are opinions. However, I question whether we drag the top producers DOWN to an average level, or do we help bring the bottom UP to a level of production for the common good. Would you run your household in the same way the government is being run today?

 

[DeletedUser]

and right now, gods probably facepalming all of you lol... a FAITHpalm if you will

 

[DeletedUser5902]

Reflecting on the first couple of posts, not all Republicans are conservative, just most. Not all Democrats are liberal, just most. Bush may not have helped the economy, but what has Obama done?
1. Raised spending
2. Made billions of new dollars, which plunged the country to the brink of mass inflation
3. Lied (at first said he was a Christian, now admitting he's got a thing for Muslims)
4. Openly stated his plan to aid the Muslims against Israel (look at history--fighting Isreal never worked out very well for the attackers)

As DadnKing said a couple of posts up, there is no reason to fund profaning of the Christian icon. Religious freedom should be granted to all religions that do not impose on others (witnessing\sharing doesn't count: what religion doesn't do that?)